Humint Events Online: "DEW Evidence" Actually Helps Prove Nukes at the WTC

Thursday, August 02, 2007

"DEW Evidence" Actually Helps Prove Nukes at the WTC

"Towards the End of One 9/11 Psyops/Limited Hangout Theory--Directed Energy Weapons" by The Anonymous Physicist


Having to spend the time looking into the alleged new "molecular dissociation cloud theory" of Judy Wood, PhD, was the last straw for me. As I have already written before, I have nothing against the theoretical knowledge of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), and have little doubt that our regime has such things, far beyond what is in the public domain--though I am virtually certain they are not in space. But I have been waiting for a shred of evidence, or proof, of DEW use on 9/11. We will see that the virtual entirety of Wood's "evidence" which is almost entirely photos (and their "interpretations"), proves the case instead for nuclear weapons use on 9/11. In fact, much of her "DEW evidence" DISPROVES the use of DEW. Now DEW could have been used in a subsidiary capacity, to confuse and confound, and to have the subsequent psyops of bogus feuding between the three bogus "collapse" mechanisms: the regime's pancaking theory, the thermite theory, and DEW--all with the purpose of hiding the actual mechanism of WTC destruction--mini-nuclear bombs. The three most popular theories are called "limited hangouts" in spy lingo.

Wood's new "Molecular Dissociation Clouds" theory is NOT being used as claimed. On her recent interview with "former" Army/Marine Intel agent, James Fetzer, PhD, Wood clouds the issue of her "molecular dissociation clouds" by only using them for "explaining" the pyroclastic clouds, "fuming ground", and toasted cars, etc. that occurred AFTER the towers' destructions--and NOT as a mechanism for their destruction as promised! And what she does say about her "molecular dissociation" clouds is far better explained by normal diffusion and turbulence phenomena, with one exception. She cites steaming/fuming ground as part of her "molecular dissociation clouds" theory. I have already written extensively on the hot surface temperatures that began on 9/11 and continued for at least six months. This arose from what was there and underneath--the China Syndrome of nuclear reacting criticalities. This is one of the many giveaways for her Psyop/Limited Hangout: To provide a bogus theory and understanding of all the phenomena that actually arose from nuclear weapons use, and the subsequent China Syndrome of nuclear criticalities underground!

Her "molecular dissociation clouds" theory appears to be nothing more than the same photos with some different captions, along with some new terms, such as "AlkaSeltzer"ing, "shaving cream", fuming, and such. It is fascinating to see how the PTB have immediately promoted her new "theory" all over the net, when there is nothing there except the same photos, maybe with some new captions and some new terms. They are claiming a recent radio interview with Fetzer (now on mp3) has some relevant info, and they make one waste one's time, but there is nothing there. (Just Fetzer dotingly praising all of Wood's inane photo interpretations.) Her previous website which had mostly photos and captions--which clearly, to me, proved the case for nukes--always had the proviso that it was "under construction." Many have waited for some real, mechanism-detailed articles proving DEW to no avail. Now there is a new website with the same proviso. So again, it is mostly photos of phenomena that can all be explained either by conventional forces, or only with nuclear demolition, and resultant China Syndrome. It also appears that Wood pulled the Finnish military expert's nuke website and photo from her new website--at least I can no longer find it. Just compare the top two photos at that Finnish website: an underground Nevada test nuke and one of the twin towers being destroyed. Case pretty much closed.

The vaporization (or her term "dustification"--giving the appearance of being a new DEW phenomena) of the WTC buildings' interior contents including people, furniture, many steel beams, etc. is completely explained by nukes. See my articles at wtcdemolition.blogspot.com where the Hiroshima nuke was known to completely vaporize people and buildings, such as the complete vanishing of the Shima Hospital, and all its patients. Or see the vanishing of the 100 foot steel tower at the Trinity site. The "toasting" of cars and not people and paper, is far better explained by nuclear bombs, and their concomitant EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses).

In fact, I have already DISPROVED DEW in my previous nuke articles where I explained exactly what EMT, Patricia Ondrovic' two interviews reveal (here and here). For completeness here, I go over this aspect. Ondrovic saw and heard popping lights at the WTC6 lobby ceiling, and simultaneously cars near her--for no apparent reason--burst into flames. One car's door then exploded off it and hit her, knocking her down. All this happened as the first tower was being destroyed somewhat further away from her, AND as WTC 5 and 6 were being exploded. As before, this must mean a nuke or nukes were exploded underground near her (WTC 5 and 6). As the nuke(s)' concomitant EMP(s) (Electromagnetic Pulse) passed through her immediate vicinity, it intercepted the cars near her. The intense electromagnetic wave induces a great current in metal--not people or paper. The current becomes great heat, resulting in rapid expansion of said metal. A given car door can only expand so much before its boundary is reached and there is nowhere for the heat or expansion to go, which results in doors or handles, etc. exploding off. You see this is why you will see some cars with only their paint vaporized (intercepted only low level EMP due to distance, angle, shielding etc.), and other cars will show a burnt front, but the back half is virtually "normal." See this photo. The Electromagnetic Field and subsequent current is stopped at the boundaries of the doors. But a crucial point is the following. If a laser or maser (microwave laser) were beamed at that area where Ondrovic was, it would have "fried" her too. The first thing that a maser does is boil a person's eyeballs. Similarly a laser would have "toasted" Ondrovic as well. Only an EMP-and NOT DEW--will affect metal and not paper or people. DEW is disproven by Ondrovic' eyewitness accounts--and her survival!--and the toasted cars and not paper or people. And you won't see this proper EMP analysis from the 911 Commission shills, or Jones, or Wood because they know that only a nuke's EMP can cause this! Please promulgate this important fact about nukes and EMPs!

Other, and differently, toasted cars that are on Wood's websites that are completely toasted brown can be explained by the hot pyroclastic flows, or resulting fires and explosions related to the destruction of the towers. No DEW needed. Cars towed away cannot be cited definitively in any way. Let us now examine some other DEW "evidence" by Wood that again, is really from nukes. The creation of ultrafine particles, like the vaporization/"dustification" of much tower contents is a known nuclear explosion phenomenon. Wood cites the trucking in of large amounts of dirt, and the covering of the WTC grounds with it; and the continual water hosing of the ground--and some say the responders as well--and the "frequent street scrubbing to get rid of the fuzzballs and nano-dust." But these, of course, are standard nuclear industry methods used to lower the level of nuclear radiation at "hotspots." Radioactive dust-- not "fuzzballs" etc.-- is what the DEW theory apparently was created to steer you away from.

In fact, Wood's new evidence leads me to realize just how much the PTB acted to hide the nuking of the WTC! Wood cites Mayor Guiliani's strange acts of apparently trucking dirt in and out of the WTC beginning that night! Here is my interpretation: Guiliani, in cahoots with the Feds/perps, know that the UCal Berkeley scientists, and others, will soon arrive and will measure radioactivity at theWTC. They must lower the radioactivity resulting from the nukes they knew they had used! So trucking dirt in and out commenced immediately followed by washing down the area. So from my very first perusing of Wood's websites, I have used her "DEW evidence" to see just what was done by the perps to cover up their nuking of the WTC on 9/11!

One could go on with responding to some of Wood's caption comments. Under a photo of "fuming" WTC grounds, some time after the towers' destructions, she writes, "Boiling a pot of water on the stove doesn't fill a kitchen with steam." Answer: Unless your kitchen has the China Syndrome underneath it. No DEWs needed, thank you. And if DEWs were used there, as many have asked: where is the beam weapon, and its power source? Then she asks, "If Dr. Wood didn't have anything credible to say, why would folks be attacking her so vehemently?" The "vehement" part is likely part of the legend. I am not attacking her vehemently. I would actually be "professionally happy" to see some proof of DEW use, and not its use to hide the proof that the WTC was nuked! And the reason knowledgeable, intelligent people attack her theory is because one is left with no other logical conclusion than all it ever was, was a devoid-of-proof, Limited Hangout to steer people away from the actual nuclear destruction mechanism, including EMPs, and later China Syndrome. And I will have a separate article on what it means when some say they don't care what did it--DEW, thermite, or nukes. For now, think about this: the people dying of radiation-induced cancers, and their families care about what caused their cancer! Obviously some people don't care what happened to these innocent, brave responders--many of who were firefighters. But some of us do. And then there's the huge number of (irradiated) people living in that area.

Note that I did not need to use bogus arguments to debunk DEW, as a certain disinfo physicist did. He used all sorts of fallacious, generic arguments like "Earth's worth of power" and "perpetual motion machine." Why? Because he could not use some of the real arguments against DEW, because that would give away all the evidence that Nukes, EMPs, and the subsequent China Syndrome occurred at the WTC! So this article not only debunks DEW, it debunks other bogus debunkers.

Now Wood and her followers cite that the Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base (where DEW is "researched") endorsed her theory. Let us examine this. It turns out that a Director of Public Affairs [not a scientist or engineer] at that Directorate said that on a "personal level," s/he finds Wood's theory to be "interesting and worthy of further consideration." A moment's reflection should lead one to realize that this somewhat positive response is a likely indication that the regime supports her putting out this Limited Hangout.

Can you find an example where any other govt/military person, or agency, says they support the use of some other "ExoWeapon" on 9/11? Can you imagine what would happen if someone sent the following letter to the Dept. of Defense, say their Bureau of Nuking Innocent Human Beings: "Dear Bureau Director, please examine the enclosed set of photos, etc. indicating that the WTC, and its human inhabitants were nuked on 9/11. By the way, isn't this the kind of thing you do? And that the China Syndrome of nuclear reacting criticalities existed there, until all were carted away some 6-8 months later. Please confirm this, or otherwise reply to me." Do you think such an inquiry would get any response? Or that its Public Affairs Director would say that his/her "personal opinion" is that it is "interesting and worthy of further consideration?" It's a clear indication that the regime wants to promote her hangout in a clever, limited way. It's fascinating that her die-hard cadre can't/won't see this. This is in part, because DEW was cleverly tied to another psyop--the use of CGI to simulate planes crashing into the twin towers. This was apparently done to cement bonds between 911 researchers. So that if you accepted the no planes theory (NPT), you should then accept DEW from the same "folks"! The only problem is that DEW is quite unprovable, and ultimately disprovable; while the NPT has been proven. But you see that a good deal of thought and chicanery went into this coupling.

Perhaps the ultimate reason why the PTB created the DEW hangout is the following. They knew that those who are effectively blind, dumb, and desperate not to know the truth about their regime would accept the regime’s “official,” ludicrous, fuel-pancaking scenario. Such people don’t, or won’t, even see the obvious explosions. The PTB knew many would see these explosions, and so they planned to release the disinfo physicist with his Thermite, or super-duper, double top-secret Thermite as needed. This would satisfy people who didn’t look too closely, and only wanted to buy a theory that had explosions in it. But the PTB knew some would see through this not-too clever Thermite Hangout also. These people would need some explanation, or seeming explanation, for all the vaporized contents—including the people—of the towers, as well as other strange phenomena such as toasted cars, “fuming ground,” trucking in and out of dirt, continual hosing down the grounds and responders, vaporized spires, spherical holes in some buildings, ultrafine particle size, etc. They knew they had to come up with an “exotic” Limited Hangout to appear to explain these “exotic” phenomena; and to create the psyops of feuding between the other bogus Hangouts. So Voila—the DEW Hangout was released and promulgated; and cleverly tied to the No Planes Theory proponents—knowing the latter was provable with the bogus cgi fakery everyone had. So this conjunction of Limited Hangouts, and specifically trying to counter-explain the exotic phenomena that are, and can ONLY be, explained with the truth of nuclear explosions, EMPs, and China Syndrome aftermath, is why the PTB put out the Directed Energy Weapons hangout--which never had a shred of evidence behind it.

So we have seen that the DEW Hangout was created to lay claim for all the "exotic" phenomena that arose from the use of nuclear bombs in the WTC, and concomitant EMPs, and subsequent China Syndrome. But now DEW has Dropped into the Dustbin of psyops history; and it is now safe to come over to the actual 9/11 destruction mechanism and aftermath. This is the proven (tritium, EMP, etc.) use of nuclear mini-bombs on 9/11 in the WTC buildings, and the subsequent China Syndrome of high temperatures and molten steel months later from criticality sites. Let us recap. This article has laid to rest the Directed Energy Weapon psyop/Hangout theory. My last article disproved the thermite hangout theory, and numerous people have disproved the ludicrous perps'/regime's theory of planes (CGI)/fuel(too low temp.)/gravity (see massive outward explosions)/pancakes (would take minutes, not seconds)--or just look at any of the videos of the explosions, and all the missing tower contents. So since all the Limited Hangouts have been disproved; it's time to accept the proven truth. The World Trade Center, and its 3000 human inhabitants were nuked on 9/11/01. The China Syndrome of molten steel and high temperatures, and many specific cancers now, and more soon to come, are the aftermath of using nuclear bombs at the WTC on 9/11.

Let me examine one last aspect of the 9/11 [anti?-]truth movement. Some of them say that 911 was an inside job; and they say that the government did it--via planes, or thermite, or DEW--to lead to the wars now waged, and the destruction of Americans' constitutional rights and freedoms. Some of them even dare to say that they can perceive what they call "the next step"--that the government will want to declare total martial law, and will use a false flag (Al CIA-Duh, Iranians, whoever is next), and will actually dare to explode a nuclear bomb in the heart of a large American city to attain those ends. Well wake up, and stop being so foolish, or shillish--it's now been proven that THEY ALREADY DID THIS--and the city was New York City, and the date was 9/11/01.

47 Comments:

Anonymous Sword_of_Truth said...

Why do you keep claiming that you are a physicist?

11:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This pretty much sums it up. Make sure you watch the whole thing:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=124983&page=58

12:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't waste your time watching that video. Not relevant to anything here.

Another attempted distraction.

12:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, we have the appearance of another shill at this site, when ever anything of great importance is posted.

Most likely it is the same NSA/DIA pig with numerous names: "Wart of anti-truth", "Thinker", and this psycho-video promoting jerk. Probably all one shill. Do not watch that video--just psycho soldiers getting off on killing innocents.

12:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this really sums it up. make sure you watch the whole thing:

http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/C69E733A247346FE94FCA7A0EC01945F/september-clues-part6.aspx

12:51 AM  
Blogger H Nicole said...

Great arguments, and I will try to keep an open mind, but I still don't buy the molten steel and "steam coming up from the ground for months" stuff. Just one picture of molten steel might get me to start thinking otherwise, but until then, it looks like fumes to me (i.e., possibly the continuation of some kind of chemical reaction in which material was prepped ahead of time with some type of chemical, and then initiated with a laser). Are molten steel and steaming grounds required for a mini-nuke theory?

There is one easily-faked satellite picture of hot spots at ground zero that we all know about, but any other evidence? Right where the "hottest" spot is in the satellite picture is exactly where there is this gaping hole with rescue workers climbing in and out, unharmed, and a big pool of water at the bottom (drjudywood.com/articles/dirtpics/010918_3946_hole_s.jpg). What the heck is that? Are you saying the heat is so far down in the earth that it does not reach the surface or something?

Also, did you address what the heck all that "lathering" was before the towers fell? Is this a mini-nuke phenomenon? Take a look at pictures where the entire side (only the south side) of the WTC is "lathering" (http://drjudywood.com/articles/wtc7/pics/GJS-WTC010.jpg). Unless the pictures are fake, you and your mini-nuke theory has got some 'splaining to do!

I say it is some kind of chemical prepping for softening up the building for its big laser blast. A lower level treatment may be what made the buildings act like butter when the planes (or whatever they were) hit the buildings -- one hit the core and blew up, but the other one missed its target and almost blew the whole DEW thing by coming out the other side of the building in tact!

(Yes, I am one of these rare, if not only, DEW'ers who believes planes -- possibly even 757's -- hit the buildings, and the buildings are just not acting the way we think they should because they have been chemically modified, that's all).

This is not a psy-ops. Just trying to weigh the evidence, and right now, I see no strong evidence of the China Syndrome. I can turn on a dime, though, with proper evidence.

1:25 AM  
Blogger H Nicole said...

PS -- Please explain the "rusting" stuff. You mention "burnt" cars but do mini-nukes rust them? This still smells more chemical than nuclear to me.

1:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi spooked,

Can you clarify who wrote this? It's posted by you, but there's no source, and it isn't clear whether the "anonymous physicist" is you, someone you know, something you came across somewhere, a joke, or what. Thanks!

DK

2:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah Nicole, the shills and/or Wood huggers are out in force.
What a load of Woodhugging or government detritus!

You try to put a lot of (false) words in A.P.'s mouth.
And you desperately repeat all the ludicrousness of the Woodhuggers.
A.P, has had numerous articles here on the molten steel, China Syndrome, and the older ones are at wtcdemolition.blogspot/com. With many citations. Including one article here just a few days ago, is still up here. The numerous firefighters and other eyewitnesses and photos of molten steel, are well documented (and cited therein), sufficient for all except Woodhuggers and/or shills. He adequately explained all this before. A.P. also documented the difference between EMP effects on cars, and the pyroclastic flows' effects.

A.P. did not mention "burnt cars", he wrote "burnt front" of a car and gave the URL for the pic, and he DETAILED PRECISELY how the EMP did this. It is quite clear that you do not, or can not, or will not, comprehend EMP. This is a common limitation disease among Woodhuggers and Joneshuggers, as both their hangouts are blown out of the water by the nukes' EMPs, and China Syndrome! Rusting is your word, not his, don't put words in someone else's mouth.

"Lathering" (don't you just love the made-up [appearing to be a new DEW phenomena] cutesy names for nuke and non-nuke efects) likely is smoke from (nuclear and/or conventional) bombs that many saw and heard go off before the "big one." The perps didn't "lather" up the towers, they did pre-"big one" explosions--conventional or nuclear as need be. Many heard and saw these.

You are the one who has a lot of "splaining" to do to try to fit DEW into Ondrovic' testimonies when it blows DEW out of the water. Just keep on ignoring it, or wrongly stating it, and proving A.P. is right.

Some of the photos that Wood cites, like the black dog photo appear to be heavily doctored by someone.

As A.P., and many others, who have woken up to this "DEW" hangout have said, there has never been any evidence of DEW use on 9/11. Just citing mostly nuclear aspects.
Actually, I see Anonymous Physicist said he saw from the first examination of her site that it was being used to hide the nuking of the WTC.

I would suggest you read all of A.P.'s articles first, or did they not brief you on that beforehand?

Your "own" stuff about planes and buttering, lathering and coming out the other side, isn't worthy of any response, and has been disproven. You would do well to try to grasp the meaning of the following: PLASTIC nosecones, smashing into steel, CGI/TV fakery. All you have is just epicycles on top of epicycles.

A.P. indicates that radioactive elements were at the surface which is why the area was dirt-treated/carted away and watered down. The long-lasting heat and molten steel and "flowing like lava" steel comments from the firemen was deeper underground and A.P. now has shown evidence such as his previous article that this was acknowledged into March, 2002.

A.P. has proved that all DEW is, is a hangout for all the photos of "exotic" phenomena to keep people away from the fact that the WTC was nuked.

If there is a tiny chance that you are not a shill, then please see also the websites from William Tahil. And see what Ed Ward (M.D.) and Bill Deagle (M.D.) have written on the nuking of the WTC. Ward had a lot of stuff on the high heat for a long time afterwards, on one site.

2:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"lathering"
"made the buildings act like butter"
both in the same comment no less!
unreal.

4:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good point!

Proves all DEW ever was, is "blathering."
But their shills sure do repeat the mantras well, don't they.

4:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i have to say that prof wood's "billiard ball example" was well done though.
and it's sudden appearance was well timed, maybe to bolster her white hat smart guy image and pave the way for her under construction DEW theory which was just so revolutionary and unheard of that it just had to be true, prompting the split from the st911's and mr. thermate in particular, giving her DEW even more 'credibility'.

lathering! maybe they destroyed the butter tower with shampoo!

4:59 AM  
Blogger H Nicole said...

Better believe I am a bona fide Wood-hugger for sure! Not a troll -- and not to worry, I give her hell, too. I just hope she is still alive because I have not heard from her in a while.

Where is the picture of molten steel? Eyewitness testimony alone is not going to fly with me on this one since it is too important -- and since molten steel is not your everyday thing, like planes flying by.

Could you give me the URL? And no Frito's, please! Do you disagree with Wood's argument that earth moving equipment wouldn't survive grabbing a piece of molten steel in its teeth like in that Frito picture? Just wondering, because I side with that argument.

I have no doubt that some of Dr. Wood's pictures may be doctored -- she even says things like, "Well, the source for this one is FEMA, so take that into consideration..." The point is, she always gives the source and does what she can with it. I still think the photographic evidence is still our best and most reliable evidence to date.

The lathering ones from various sources are not doctored, I don't think, or are you saying they are? If not, nukes can do that? This "lathering" in the picture I sent occurred just after the first tower fell -- almost like they were trying to hide it with the dust clouds from that collapse. Are you saying they nuked the second building just after the first one collapsed, like a low-level prepping for the big collapse later? Could be, but don't know why. Just keeping an open mind.

Saw the car argument and seems to me like nukes and EMT phenomena can do just about anything, including leaving "rust-like" deposits behind. I will try to look into EMT more, but still think its chemical and not nuclear for now.

The "pyroclasmic flow" engulfed many people and does not appear to have been hot. Is this a problem?

Sorry, but I am one above you on the TV fakery -- seems to me like TV fakery was used to misguide people into believing that TV fakery was used. Feels like a trap simply because I see no reason why the government would not just go ahead and fly damn planes into the buildings. So much work the other way. What's the point, considering the planes/missiles had nothing to do with taking down the building anyway. Why bother with CGI? Haven't looked into it, but it also seems way too many eyewitnesses have to have seen/heard something fly by and go into the buildings. Maybe not.

Okay, so you are having major molten steel problems with me and many minor problems in other areas, but worth looking into. Still a Wood-hugger, and probably will remain one even if mini-nukes were used. Also, lots of stuff going on that day, so could have been all of the above, as everybody, including you, seems to have proposed at one point or another.

5:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's EMP, not EMT, wake up and go back to sleep. But blather up first!

At least you admit, you are not interested in the truth: "Still a Wood-hugger, and probably will remain one even if mini-nukes were used."

If only the other Woodhuggers, and Joneshuggers would too.

5:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good point 4:59 about the billiard balls.

But all that proves is what A.P. said, that the 2 Limited Hangouts ("DEW" and thermite) were created for those who would not swallow the official C.T., and who could see the explosions etc. And each of the 2 hangouts certainly wanted to appear to "establish credentials" by disproving the O.C.T. which is also done by viewing the "collapses" with eyes wide open.

5:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i think that a massive steel tractor might act as a heat sink while grasping a piece of glowing hot metal thus allowing itself to pick said glowing metal up without damaging itself too badly.
i do doubt if any tractor could pick up molten metal since the word molten denotes metal in a liquid state. does it not?

anonymous physicist has previously cited the official reports of intense heat around ground zero lasting for months - and he has explained that only a nuclear "china syndrome" effect could account for this intense heat.
and he has provided a url to his earlier report which i provide for you again here:

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2007/05/wtc-nuke-thesis-from-anonymous.html

""seems to me like TV fakery was used to misguide people into believing that TV fakery was used.""

wow, like a psy-op?
fortunately the fact of TV fakery on 9/11 is not only well established and proven, but obvious as well.

""no reason why the government would not just go ahead and fly damn planes into the buildings.""

what if it missed? or even more damaging for the official fairytale, what if it didn't miss?

if a real 767 were to really strike a wtc with a force equivalent to X then the wtc would also be striking the 767 with the same force equivalent to X.

it would squash and then explode into a zillion pieces which would have rained down onto the streets - OUTSIDE of the wtc.

no airplane could have penetrated a wtc.
certainly not a flying beercan like a 767.
^ha

5:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well you are way, way, way out of your depth I see when it comes to TV fakery and what would have happened to the plane and the building if a real one crashed into it. There is no point in even trying to go into that with you, from what you wrote. Sad that you believe you know what would happen to the "plane" and the building though. On this point, as a starter, you should read some Holmgren or Haupt.

Your point about the pyroclastic clouds has some validity. I would say it depends on where and when. Initial high temps would greatly decrease with distance and time. There's a rapid cooling off.
People, and cars, etc engulfed right near the towers probably got "browned" so to speak. People, of course, started running right away. Those engulfed further away and later would have been engulfed by a cooler pyroclastic cloud.

And just saying "DEW" doesn't add anything to understanding.

Oh I just saw your comments, h, good!

5:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why they didn't use planes. by gerard holmgren

5:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the WTC2 media hoax

6:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""So much work the other way."" (fakery)

easily done with computers.
and some of the renditions of alleged ua175 are so ridiculous that they actually look like nothing more than cardboard silhouettes of a plane.

UA175 freakshow


""Haven't looked into it,"" (fakery)

why not?

6:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting how these comments have morphed into the issue of TV fakery. Just like some out there (and their wbsites) who avoid the WTC destruction mechanism completely and go on foever about the TV fakery. That's been proved now 100 ways to Sunday--except for shills and idiots. Time to concentrate on the mass murder M.O.

The nuking of the 3000 people, and the China Syndrome afterwards causing untold cancers from Day One.

10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i guess tvfakery/no planes is just too easy to grasp.

11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What's the point, considering the planes/missiles had nothing to do with taking down the building anyway"

Planes had a lot to do with taking down the buildings. They were the cover story.

Since real or remote controlled planes would not penetrate, even if you could be sure they hit in the right place at the right time, they would not provide the cover.

This is Killtown's argument.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

It makes sense, though there is no need to explain why, since it is incontrovertible that it happened. Real planes don't act as shown in the videos, and there is not authenticated debris, just debris planted in implausible locations, and not in anywhere near the amount one would expect to fall below the impact zones.

Ningen

2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A.P. makes an important point about how DEW was used to discredit TV Fakery, and the association has made me more willing to give DEW the benefit of the doubt, even though externally applied energy didn't make sense. So I'm a recently cured victim of the psyop.

Ningen

2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, good.
But A.P.s main point , and Spooked's title, seem to be that the whole reason for the creation of the DEW hangout was to hide the nuking of the WTC from us. Likewise for thermite, which most "no-planers/TV fakery" proponents never fell for--or at least not for very long. So the DEW and the NPT were put out by the same people. Now, the few remaining DEW diehards do seem to be very suspicious--pushing something that either 1. has no evidence and/or 2. is evidence of different known phenomena, fitting it to a "t".

The nukes, the EMPs, and what he calls the China Syndrome going on for months afterwards.
It does seem like all of Wood's photos and folksy names are there to hide the nuking from us.

2:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.911researchers.com/node/901

3:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That was a good "node"/article, about the nuking of the WTC and the cancers due to radiation, Anonymous 3:51. Thank you!!

Maybe you can post there, the URLs to my articles here, and at wtcdemolition.blogpsot.com
Thanks.
Anonymous Physicist

5:23 PM  
Blogger Total said...

Much of this rhetoric is rather is overblown. It's pretty obvious that beam weapons and mininukes are NOT mutually exclusive.

Dr. Wood seems to be using the term DEW a bit to broadly, to encompass things like mininukes and applied resonance (ie. "Tesla's earthquake machine").

Observing the totality of the destruction and effects, it is apparent that just about *ALL* of these methods were used. "Spherical" holes would be indicative of mininukes, but the holes Dr. Wood has focused on are *CYLINDRICAL* not spherical. Cylindrical holes are indicative of BEAM WEAPONS of some sort.

Overall it looks like we have a resonance weapon applied to the steel skeleton before their disintegration, which explains the creaking, cracking, and so on; a space-based microwave weapon which interacted with the antenna designed of microwave susceptor silicon carbide; even more exotic beam weaponry of some sort fired at closer quarters (possibly nuclear powered), which explains the "smaller" (24-ft) cylindrical holes; and, yes, 4th or 5th generation mininukes in the basement and throughout the structure.

If the various well-meaning parties here could drop their ego issues and paranoia, they could see this.

7:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Cylindrical holes are indicative of BEAM WEAPONS of some sort.""

perhaps. but if the holes' cylindrical feature (as if drilled from above by a giant drill-bit) is indicative of a beam weapon then it would have had to been a beam weapon from above would it not?
either that or a beam weapon from below but directed straight upward - and what would be the point of that?

this implies a beam weapon mounted on some kind of flying platform of unknown altitude which in turn implies some kind of power supply so advanced that it might as well be considered magic.
^ha.

8:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is you folks that created this.
Scientists call a nuclear device, a nuclear device, not DEW. Lets leave standby Tesla out of this. I have elsewhere demonstrated that there are no space-based Energy Weapons allowed in Space! It's beyond the scope here, you wouldn't comprehend it, Total.

Please don't try to mesh nuclear aspects with DEW. DEW is done. DEW was designed to hide the nuking of the WTC on 9/11. You are getting both desperate and hilarious at the same time here. See my response to your similar remarks at the other comments above.

I am now unable to stop laughing at your "space-based microwave weapon which interacted with the antenna designed of microwave susceptor silicon carbide; even more exotic beam weaponry of some sort..."

Give it a rest, NSA perps. Stop sending these shills. Just admit the nukes and the EMPs and the China Syndrome. We'll forgive you (like Hell.)

Anonymous Physicist

9:31 PM  
Blogger Total said...

I agree we shouldn't mesh the beam weapon evidence (cylindrical damage, etc) with the mininuke evidence (tritium, lymphoma). They are reasonably distinct and the causes and effects can be analyzed separately.

I'm trying to play nice here, AP. Why don't you comment on the CYLINDRICAL damage? Spooked never comments on it either. Why not?

Who gives a shit what is "allowed" on an orbital platform? We are dealing with criminals and murderers here. They don't much hew to what is "allowed."

You're the one sounding like a desperate shill here; I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and assume you are merely an hysterical ego case.

Best,

12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so you are suggesting that the cylindrical holes were caused by a beam fired from an orbiting platform?
imagine how much power it would take to fire a beam down thru the atmosphere and create those holes.
this implies a power supply technology so advanced that it might as well be considered magic.
h.

1:58 PM  
Blogger Total said...

NO. Can anyone read anymore? The smaller holes were likely created by something fired by something closer in than an orbital platform, like a plane or helicopter. It could have been powered by something like cold fusion, which has been covered up you know who and others.

An orbital platform would have been appropriate for a wider-diameter microwave. The military had plans 40 years ago to power such a weapon with solar collectors. I suppose some people still consider the sun to be magic.

Why so obsessed with the Clarkean definition of magic? Yes, the military has advanced technology which would be considered "magic" by the fluoride-riddled serfs. What's your point?

2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""smaller holes were likely created by something fired by something closer in than an orbital platform, like a plane or helicopter.""

what is the approx diameter of the smaller holes?
a cold fusion generator powered beam weapon mounted on a helicopter?

""An orbital platform would have been appropriate for a wider-diameter microwave. The military had plans 40 years ago to power such a weapon with solar collectors.""

a solar powered orbiting microwave giant diameter beam shooter?
must be one hell of a solar collector!
why wouldn't they use their cold fusion generator for that as well?

my point is that all of this is mere speculation.
what is YOUR point?
h.

3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, Total, I appreciate your apparent civility.

I think h has answered your latest "stuff" well.

Why do you cite cold fusion as a great energy source? To my knowledge even its greatest proponents would not tout it as such. I am sure it is real and immensely valuable as an energy source, but I believe it is a slow, lower energy source, unlike "hot" fusion or fission.

So I doubt "cold fusion" is powering any flying, atmospheric DEW-type platforms.

Regarding cylindrical holes, isn't it just one or two? And is (are) said cylindrical holes near the collapsed towers? Is it possible that some of the massive debris (weighing up to hundreds of tons)expelled outwards, in some cases 600 feet, could have fallen onto the other shorter structures? And made said holes? They would be cylindrical if they were able to smash downward far enough. Seems like they would have the necessary mass and velocity, at that time. An easy thing to calculate, why don't you please.

You seem to be the structural engineer, like Wood. You would know such things as the tensile strength of the roof and flooring, etc. I do see all sorts of tower outer stucture at the holes I believe you refer to, indicating the conventional explanation above is correct. Please provide the URLs for the pics for the holes you refer to, to make sure we are on the same page.

In any case, it just seems like DEW is used to just say a name for anything not immediately apparent--as to cause. Not a scientific way of proceding.

And it is not my problem if you (or anyone) cannot accept that there are not, and never will be, orbital DEW-type weapons. If it ever comes about, everything is all over. This is a very separate matter, and I wanted to keep it out, as that takes a while to "digest" (as it did for me, as well)--and much study. So I don't expect you or anyone to appreciate that off the bat. But I am virtually certain, we can drop any notion of such things being in orbit. Though our military, and who controls them, sure would like to get those things there.

So I have given you a preliminary answer RE cylindrical holes. I still say, everything that happened on 9/11 is either due to nukes, EMPs, China Syndrome, or conventional forces.


But you could give us the URLS for the pics you refer to please, and how many cylindrical holes are you alleging?

Best to you, and Wood, it's not personal--I always believed she is being forced to put out her disinfo--under threat of torture and death.

Anonymous Physicist

5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the only photos of craters/holes that i am aware of are at prof wood's site.
h.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam4.html#HoleInStreet

7:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and they don't look very cylindrical to me.

7:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks h and anonymous.

You're right 7:18, any close-ups reveal that they are not too cylindrical, i.e. circular on top after all.

Perhaps that's why Spooked didn't reply. Nothing, as usual here. As I wrote, any deep holes probably from massive debris from tower collapse.

In fact, I would propose the possibility that some fragments from tower explosion may still have been hot. I refer to the ones that shot out from the center of the towers in their parabolic arcs. Remember the momentary hypocenter nuclear explosion temperature can reach 100 million degrees. There is rapid cooling down to 10,000 degrees. But there is a possibility that some fragments still had a relatively high temp. But that may not have been needed, as their mass and downward velocity would have been high at that point, as WTC 5, 6 were only 8 or 9 storys high. The "chunks" that hit it could have been exploded out from the very first explosion at the highest altitude. So its carrying a lot of Kinetic energy when it hits the roof of the 8 story building. (And like I said, there is much tower outer structure on those roofs.)

I guess, as with all of DEW, as I have written, everything is explained by either conventional forces or nukes.

Thanks people.

Anonymous Physicist

7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DEW was always reasonable speculation.

Just as mini-nukes were.

Even indications of "priming" the Tower "hits" by use of more conventional explosives such as thermite (or with missile strikes).

The only valid claim to be explored here, is the assertion that the DEW narrative was an engineered limited hangout to politically control evidence of mini-nukes (tritium, physical symptoms, etc.).

I don't yet buy your claim on that.

I want to focus more on the political and organizational behavior of Reynolds, Wood, Fetzer
and their entourage.
The latter represents something specific and concrete.

Stick to the psychology of the various manipualted narratives, because there is no way you will ever conclusively PROVE that specific DEW were NOT used at Ground Zero.

Even if you could prove forensic evidence of nuke effects and symptoms.

You can't prove that other modalities (microwave, laser, etc.) were NOT used.

11:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well 11:55, let's see.

"DEW was always reasonable speculation."

A.P. wrote just the opposite. He said that from his first looking at Wood's site, he saw that the "exotic" stuff that he knew clearly to be from nukes, EMP, China Syndrome was falsely being claimed to be from some ad hoc creation, called DEW. Why was DEW and thermite brought out after the Finnish military expert came out with his nuke articles? Both seem to arise shortly after the English translation of that made the net rounds.

RE Thermite, A.P. wrote in his original nuke article (at wtcdemolition.blogspot.com), that he thought thermite or other conventional explosive was used, either as part of the destruction and/or as a decoy.

RE the chicanery and collusion of Wood, Fetzer et al, A.P. hints at that, but does not dwell on it. So it seems he agrees with you on that. It's not his focus, nor it seems, is it Spooked's.

There are numerous blogs whose prime focus (or one of them) seems to be to out the phonies, the shills, the disinfo agents. Seems like there are barely a few who would survive such scrutiny. I agree. But bottom line is, it is Spooked's blog, and it seems like he doesn't want to use his blog for this which is his prerogative.

Then you have, "Stick to the psychology of the various manipualted narratives, because there is no way you will ever conclusively PROVE that specific DEW were NOT used at Ground Zero."

Clearly Spooked and A.P. do not care for this suggestion to stick to "psychology." You can, that's your business. Spooked shouldn't be told what to stick to. Your own blog could do that.

Personally, I am glad that A.P.--like Ed Ward, like William Tahil, like videographers like mysticgroove, and a couple of others--have enlightened us simultaneously on the probable nuking of the WTC, and the likely deliberate govt hangout of DEW and thermite. Spooked by posting A.P.s articles, seems to agree that the nuking is a very important issue, far beyond your "psychology" limitation. I hope Rick Siegel's September video will be about the nuking of the WTC, as promised, in the short version.

A.P. has hinted that people who don't care about what brought down the towers, and what (radiation) is now killing responders and nearby residents, would if they lived right near by! Think on that. These things need to be exposed.

Then we have your second half of your last sentence above, "no way you will ever conclusively PROVE that specific DEW were NOT used at Ground Zero."

That is poor on numeous grounds.
1. You can't disprove a negative.
2. This fallacious argument was used by the U.S. govt to invade Iraq. (Sadam [a CIA plant like OBL] couldn't "completely" disprove they had WMD. So we had to have a war, so they said.) Sad to see anyone still using this argument.
3. Not how science works. If no demonstrable evidence of DEW was ever presented, no scientist should ever mention it. Maybe the chair I am sitting on conrols the Universe--should anyone take this seriously if there's no evidence. But wait, I can exclaim "CHAIR" every time I encounter or see a photo of an exotic thing. Not how science works.

Your last sentence: "You can't prove that other modalities (microwave, laser, etc.) were NOT used."

First it is up to those promoting things like DEW for them to demonstrate some proof. (And again you wish to disprove a negative. See above. I'd try to go beyond that if you can.)

A.P. actually wrote s/he would like to see it. S/he was not against DEW per se, and believe they exist in very advanced form. But until then, it was clear to him that there is no evidence of it on 9/11, and that it was put out to hide the nuking of the WTC.

And A.P. did prove that things like the toasted cars, with their paint peeled on the front and not the back, and the cars igniting right by Ondrovic were well explained by EMP. If you can't, or won't, comprehend that, that's not A.P. or Spooked's fault. But A.P. HAS DISPROVED some of what was claimed to be from some DEW somehow from somewhere from some energy source, were nuclear effects.

I for one will go elsewhere if I want to see "psychology" discussed, or if I want to see the outing of the disinfo agents. If that is done well, I suspect nearly all blogs, etc. would disappear. And I agree with you--that would be fascinating, but not Spooked's thing apparently, and his prerogative.

I am grateful that A.P. has explained how the WTC was likely nuked, how EMPs worked, and how the China Syndrome went on for many months afterwards.

And I thank Spooked for posting A.P.'s articles. No one has yet disproved anything he has written, though they have had several months now to try.

4:05 PM  
Blogger Total said...

Hey AP,

I was a little hard on you on the other post before reading your more civil tone here. I'll got point by point real quick.

Regarding cylindrical holes, isn't it just one or two?

No, there are several. Review the photographs on Wood's site. WTC6 looks like it's been decimated by a series of ~25 foot holes shot directly from above, WTC5 has a smaller number of similar holes, and there's even one on the midle of the street (next to the ex-WTC2 IIRC).

Now, there were also cylindrical holes of about the same size "chopped" at diagonal angles into WTC4. This to me is an indicator that the beam weapon creating these holes was not space-based but was fired form closer quarters - i.e. a helicopter or drone aircraft that was buzzing around Southern Manhattan.

there are not, and never will be, orbital DEW-type weapons. If it ever comes about, everything is all over.

The first sentence here is an assertion which I simply have not seen backed up. Other commenters are insinuating you believe this to be the case because of some kind of political agreement with ETs. I am not very well-versed in exopolitics an would be glad to see a link about this.

The second sentence -- that it is all over if that is the case -- is one I agree with. I think 9/11 was a kind of "proof on concept" for these systems, and that moreover it was *rigged* proof-of-concept, with atmospheric and other conditions set just so. Shanksville is highly indicative of this. They "proved" they could zap a moving drone aircraft out of the sky; but the convenient location this was don -- above a mine shaft, tends to undermine the efficacy of the weapon.

I think it is important to explore and expose what use of space-based weapons there has been to date; because if there are going to be thousands of these weapons able to operate quickly and nimbly, we are in great trouble.

Again, I don't "deny" the use of mininukes @ WTC. I am convinced they were used and killed or will kill hundreds or thousands with the radiation. But, like thermate or C4, I don't think mininukes can explain all of the observed phenomena.

3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Total:

You were already referred to the article on why I said there are no DEW in orbit. Don't put words in my mouth, that is clear shill behavior. I never said there was any agreement. I said they'd be blasted out of there. Re-read all my comments, if you can read. I don't give someone a URL twice. Play your games with someone else. That you comment on something without reading it first-(and then put words in someone's mouth), when your were referred to it, just shows you are a total shill.

So you claim there are several "cylindrical holes." Why can't you say how many? Could it be then you'd have to pinpoint each one. If you are merely referring to Wood's site. Then clearly when you zoom into them, they are not circular on top--as others here have already told you. Some are blatently non-circular. Some are a little more circular-looking from a distance, but not when zoomed into. Heavy chinks with signifciant downward velocity (and K.E.) which might have still been quite hot from the nuclear detonation that expelled them can explain these pseudo-cylindrical holes without the need for DEW, which still has no shred of evidence of being used.

You send over a zoomed-in photo and pinpoint each one you would like to claim for "DEW." Then you've got your "diagonal" holes. These are just likely holes made by exploding "chunks" from the towers. But why don't you include URLs with your claims? So we can all look at them.

I am glad you now concede nukes were used--is this Wood's current "offical" word also?

I am "sorry" that I cannot concede that any DEW was used. Still no proof, rather as all my articles indicate, all the evidence indicates that DEW "theory" was put out by the perps to hide the nuking. OTHERWISE WOOD's SITE WOULD HAVE GIVEN EQUAL WEIGHT TO NUKES ALL ALONG, INSTEAD OF CLAIMING NUKE-EVIDENCE AS DEW EVIDENCE.

So far, all the evidence indicates that all DEW-claimed phenomena are either from nukes or conventional forces.

4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry for the typo, should be "heavy chunks."
A.P.

4:21 PM  
Blogger Total said...

I'm not going to do your homework for you. You and others reading this can go find the cylindrical cutouts yourself. See www.wtc6.net and www.drjudywood.com . Your excuses and attempts to write off this obvious evidence of beam weaponry are as lame and transparent as the thermite-heads' (who have a similar "molten" metal fetish BTW).

6:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You really gave yourself away again, Total. You want us to find the "cutout." But we already did!

This source--THE SPY'S HANDBOOK - Spy Jargon--defines cutout as follows:

"Cutout: middleman between agent and agency" See: http://members.fortunecity.com/muhcashin/manual7.html

We found the cutout, and you're obviously it.
A.P.

8:37 PM  
Blogger H Nicole said...

Hey, long time no speak. DEW'y Wood-hugger here again. Glad to see mostly civil discourse here, though there is definitely room for improvement on some of these posts.

Here is something else I question from the original post:

If a laser or maser (microwave laser) were beamed at that area where Ondrovic was, it would have "fried" her too.

Who says we are limited to microwaves? Why not pick and choose the wavelength you want? There are plenty of chemical reactions that can be triggered by UV, gamma, IR or whatever you want -- and these things won't "Fry the Eyeballs" out of anybody. In fact, only certain microwave frequencies will "fry the eyeballs" out of somebody, as many other microwave frequencies can probably be used as well.

Also, still not sold on the molten steel, even after reading more than I can bear. Sorry. Not saying it wasn't there. Just saying I'm not betting my life on it given only the evidence presented here so far.

Finally, I post mostly on shoes4industry.blogspot.com because it seems so simple. This place has a lot of great info, but man, I can't even find the blog here that I somehow stumbled upon earlier that had a discussion about the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Where the heck is it?

Anyway, Congressman Keith Ellison from District 5 in Minnesota, where the bridge collapsed, made remarks on July 17, 2007, that Bush was like Hitler and was probably responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That's probably why his bridge was promptly attacked within two weeks...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/wbush114.xml

1:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Never mind the "sweet" disinfo agent.

Those of you who are new to my article(s), please read them all at wtcdemolition.blogspot.com

There will also be a new blog on my previous and new articles that pertain to having more than amply proved the China Syndrome of high heat and molten steel and radiation for months after 9/11 at the WTC. Stay tuned for this new blogspot, as well.

Anonymous Physicist

6:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger